God's Law For Modern Man

Brian Schwertley

Contents:

Introduction

The biblical teaching regarding God’s law has been perverted and neglected by many churches during the twentieth century. The law has been treated as if it were the enemy of mankind. The reasons for this are manifold. The theological system called Dispensationalism has dominated Fundamentalist and Evangelical churches for over a generation. Dispensationalism teaches that all of the Old Testament law (including the moral and civil law) has been put away by Christ. The law, it is said, belongs to a former dispensation. Thus, the motto of Dispensationalism is that “we are not under law, but under grace” (what Paul meant by this phrase will be dealt with below). Modern (post D. L. Moody) revivalism has replaced the older (biblical) methods of preaching the gospel (which emphasized God’s holiness, law, repentance, His wrath and judgment against sin, along with the cross) with a focus on the love of God and the attainment of personal peace and happiness (“God has a wonderful plan for your life—accept Jesus”). Thus an antinomian (i.e., anti-law) theology has produced an antinomian gospel, a gospel in which true repentance is not required. One cannot comprehend the true gospel without understanding God’s nature and law. “If we cease to present the law as the divine requirement for human conduct and life, we cease to present the message of salvation through Jesus Christ as it should be presented.”¹

By rejecting God’s righteous requirements for both men and nations, most churches have retreated to a form of unbiblical pietism which emphasizes saving individual souls, not nations and cultures. Since many churches do not believe that God has given mankind a blueprint to run society, they leave culture in Satan’s grasp while they build new basketball courts and plan the next prophecy conference. The church has ceased to be salt and light to the surrounding culture. “The increasing breakdown of law and order must first of all be attributed to the churches and their persistent antinomianism. If the churches are lax with respect to the law, will not the people follow suit? And civil law cannot be separated from biblical law, for the biblical doctrine of law includes all law, civil, ecclesiastical, societal, familial, and all other forms of law. The social order which despises God’s law places itself on death row: it is marked for judgment.”² The goal of this study is that Christians would return to a biblical view of God’s holy law and thus teach the whole counsel of God. If the nations are to be made disciples for Christ (Mt. 28:18ff.), nothing less will do.

Defining Terms

One of the major reasons that unbiblical views of the law are prevalent in churches today is a failure to carefully define terms. The word law in the Bible is used in many different ways. A certain meaning of law which is legitimate in one context would be wrong and even heretical if applied to a passage where a different meaning is intended. Thus, to avoid confusion, the following is a summary of the biblical usage of the word law. One very broad usage of the word law is Torah. Torah is much more than just a legal code, for it includes the covenant between God and Israel. Everything Israel was to know and do, as well as God’s covenant promises, together with the covenant stipulations (the curses and blessings, etc.) is Torah. Thus, Torah is an all-encompassing way of life, a covenant document between God and His people. When the Old Testament prophets preached against the apostasy, declension and wickedness of Israel, they brought a covenant lawsuit against the people.

The word “law” has several meanings in the New Testament. The law can mean the Decalogue or Ten Commandments (Rom. 13:8ff; 7:7). It can refer to an individual law (Rom. 7:2, 3). It can refer to divine revelation or to the whole Old Testament. In 1 Corinthians 14:21, Paul says, “In the law it is written” and then quotes Isaiah the prophet (Isa. 28:11-12); in Romans 3:19, after quoting several Psalm portions and Isaiah, Paul says, “Now we know that whatever the law says.” “Here he uses the word ‘law’ as synonymous with the Old Testament.”³ The expression “the law and the prophets” also refers to the whole Old Testament (Matt. 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Lk. 16:16; 24:44; Rom. 3:21). The word law is even used to denote a rule or principle. Paul speaks of the “law of faith” (Rom. 3:27), and James the “law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25). Paul says, “I find then a law, that evil is present” (Rom. 7:21). He discusses the “law in my members,” “the law of my mind,” and “the law of sin” (Rom. 7:23). The author of Hebrews uses law to denote the ceremonial law (Heb. 9:22; 10:1). Paul sometimes uses the word law to denote the legal indictment or sentence of death that the law brings (Gal. 2:19; Rom. 7:4). Thus, Paul can say that believers are “dead to the law” as a legal sentence of death and then, in the same epistle, urge believers to obey the law as a guide for godly living and sanctification (e.g., Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14, 19-21). If one does not carefully consider the contextual meaning and use of the word law in the New Testament, then the meaning attributed will be inaccurate, arbitrary, and unscriptural.

The Categories of Old Testament Law

In order to have a proper understanding of God’s law it is necessary to discuss the categories of Old Testament law. Theologians have recognized a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws within the Old Testament since at least the third century.⁴ “The recognition of a ceremonial category of laws in the Old Testament is commonplace among theologians (from Thomas Aquinas to Charles Hodge).”⁵ The Old Testament law has traditionally been divided into moral, civil and ceremonial categories. Some scholars reject the distinction between ceremonial and moral law as an artificial construct imposed upon the law. They assert that the laws are mixed in such a way that the Jews would not have recognized the different categories. While it is true that the Old Testament laws are not laid out systematically in separate categories, the distinction between ceremonial and moral law is clearly taught in both testaments. A number of passages indicate that both God and Israel clearly recognized the distinction between moral laws and those which were ceremonial. In fact, several passages would be incomprehensible without such a distinction. “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD?” (1 Sam 15:22) “To obey is better than sacrifice, because obedience to God is a moral duty, constantly and indispensably necessary; but sacrifice is but a ceremonial institution, sometimes unnecessary, as it was in the wilderness; and sometimes sinful, when it is offered by a polluted hand, or in an irregular manner; therefore their gross disobedience to God’s express command is not to be compensated with sacrifice.”⁶ The ceremonial rituals apart from faith and repentance accomplished nothing except arousing the anger of a holy God. “A category distinction is unmistakable in God’s declaration, ‘I desire faithful love, not sacrifice’ (Hos. 6:6). That statement would have made no sense whatsoever if Israel could not have told the difference between the laws demanding sacrifice (which we call ceremonial) and the laws demanding faithful love (which we call moral and civil). Are we to believe that the ancient Israelites lacked the mental acumen to catch the contrast between laws which bound Jews and Gentiles alike (e.g., the death penalty for murder, Lev. 24:21-22) and those which bound Jews but not Gentiles (e.g., the prohibition of eating animals that died of themselves, Deut. 14:21)? Whether they used the verbal labels of ‘moral’ (civil) and ‘ceremonial’ (as we do) is beside the point.”⁷ The New Testament also recognizes the ceremonial distinction. In fact, the book of Hebrews is incomprehensible without such a distinction (cf. Heb. 7:11-12, 18-19). Although violating a ceremonial law under the Old covenant would be immoral (i.e., a sin), because any violation of God’s revealed will is sinful, nevertheless the distinction between moral and ceremonial is biblical and must be maintained.

Ceremonial Law

The ceremonial laws are those ordinances which typify Jesus Christ and His work of redemption. These laws were shadows which pointed to Jesus Christ who is the reality, the substance, and the perfect. “What were the tabernacle and temple? What was the holy place with the utensils of it? What was the oracle, the ark, the cherubim, the mercy-seat, placed therein? What was the high priest in all his vestments and administration? What were the sacrifices and annual sprinkling of blood in the most holy place? What was the whole system of their religious [temple] worship? Were they anything but representations of Christ in the glory of His person and His office? They were a shadow, and the body represented by that shadow was Christ.”⁸ The ceremonial laws refer to the sacrificial rituals (the temple cultus): the priesthood, the sacrifices, the Levitical holy days (i.e., the feasts), the temple, the music, the utensils, circumcision, ritual washings, and so on. The ceremonial laws strengthened the faith of the Jews in the coming Messiah, by typifying both Him and the redemption from sin that He would bring. The ceremonial laws were directed to those in Israel. They were restorative, for they reflected God’s mercy and salvation. They were anticipatory, for they looked ahead to the perfect, final salvation wrought by the Messiah. And they were temporary, for as types and shadows they could not really remove the guilt of sin and bring perfection. God always intended to supersede the whole ceremonial system by Jesus Christ.

That the ceremonial law introduced by Moses was typical of Christ and His work is taught throughout the New Testament, and especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is declared to be a ‘shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.’ The tabernacle and its services were ‘patterns of things in the heavens,’ and figures, anti-types, of the true tabernacle, into which Christ has now entered for us. Col. ii. 17; Heb. ix. 23, 24. Christ is said to have effected our salvation by offering Himself as a sacrifice and by acting as our high priest. Eph. v. 2; Heb. ix. 11, 12, 26, 28; xiii. 11, 12. That the coming of Christ has superseded and forever done away with the ceremonial law is also evident from the very fact just stated that ceremonies were types of Him, that they were the shadows of which He was the substance. Their whole purpose and design were evidently discharged as soon as His real work of satisfaction was accomplished; and therefore it is not only a truth taught in Scripture (Heb. x. 1-14; Col. ii. 14-17; Eph. ii. 15, 16), but an undeniable historical fact, that the priestly work of Christ immediately and definitely superseded the work of the Levitical priest. The instant of Christ’s death, the veil separating the throne of God from the approach of men ‘was rent in twain from the top to the bottom’ (Matt. xxvii. 50, 51), thus throwing the way open to all, and dispensing with priests and their ceremonies forever.⁹

The ceremonial law also included laws designed to teach Israel about their religious, ethical and covenantal separation from the surrounding pagan nations. There were ceremonial laws which forbade the covenant people to: mix “different kinds of seeds” when planting crops (Deut. 22:9); plow with two different types of animals such as an ox and a donkey (Deut. 22:10); wear garments made of two different types of cloth such as linen and wool (Deut. 22:11). God also prohibited the Israelites from eating unclean animals (Lev. 11:1-47; 20:22-26; Deut. 14:1-21). These laws illustrated that the Gentile nations were unclean before the coming of Christ (cf. Acts 10:9-43; Gal. 2:12). In the Old covenant era, Gentiles who came to believe in the God of Israel had to become Jews (e.g., Ruth). These laws acted as a wall of division between Jews and Gentiles (cf. Eph. 2:11-22). But now that Christ has accomplished a perfect redemption, people of all nations who believe in Christ are made holy and are part of God’s covenant people with full rights as adopted sons. Although these ceremonial laws do not apply to New covenant believers, the principles they teach do apply. Christians are to be holy and separate from the pagan mindset and lifestyle of sin and unbelief and are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1).

The Moral Law

The moral laws of God are those laws which are based on God’s nature. God Himself is the absolute standard of righteousness. Since the moral laws reflect His nature and character, they are “immutable and irrepealable even by God Himself.”¹⁰ Since God’s moral nature does not and cannot change (Ex. 3:14; Isa. 41:4; Heb. 1:11, 12), the laws which are based on that nature are absolute. They are perfect, universally binding, and everlasting. Any idea that God’s moral law is arbitrary or based upon something outside of God Himself is unbiblical. We know that God’s moral law is based on His moral character, for the attributes of God are applied to that law. The Bible says that God is perfect (Deut. 32:4; Mt. 5:48). It declares that “the law of the LORD is perfect” (Ps. 19:7). Jesus said that “God alone is good” (Mk. 10:18). Paul said, “we know that the law is good” (Rom. 7:12). The Scriptures teach that God “alone is holy” (Rev. 7:12). Paul states in Romans that “the law is holy” (Rom. 7:12). “‘The law is spiritual’ (Rom. 7:14) and as such is from the Spirit of God (Jn. 4:24), and bears the imprints of His character.... Because the Lord is righteous (Ps. 116:5, 129:5; 145:17; Ezra 9:15; Jer. 12:1; Lam. 1:18; Dan. 9:7, 14), He instructs sinners in the way and loves righteous deeds (Ps. 11:7; 25:8).... Further attributes of God which are applied to the law are justice (Ps. 25:8-10; Prov. 28:4-5; Zech. 7:9-12), truth (Ps. 25:10; 119:142, 151; Rev. 15:3), faithfulness (Ps. 93:5; 111:7; 119:86), and purity (Ps. 119:140).”¹¹ Since God’s moral law is based on His perfect unchanging attributes, any idea that it is for Israel only or for a former dispensation is unbiblical.

The moral law of God is summarized in the Ten Commandments (the Decalogue). The number ten in Scripture indicates fullness or completeness. Thus, the Ten Commandments represent God’s entire ethical standard given to mankind throughout the Bible. The early Presbyterian and Puritan practice of categorizing the various ethical stipulations and case laws under different commandments as expressions of each commandment is indeed biblical. In Exodus 32:15 we are told that the tablets of stone were written on both sides. Although God did not give a complete revelation to man, by giving ten commands and writing on both sides of the tablets, He made it very clear to His people that nothing was to be added by man unto His moral law. As a summary representing the whole, the Ten Commandments are perfect and complete.

We do not know why the Ten Commandments were written on two tablets of stone. The older commentators believed that the first table sets forth man’s duty toward God while the second table prescribes man’s duty toward other men. Because recent discoveries regarding ancient middle eastern law-covenants have revealed that two copies of law-codes were made, one for the king and one for the people, some modern commentators believe that each table contained a complete copy of the Ten Commandments. Exodus 32:16 records that the tablets and the writing on the tablets were the work of God. The Bible says they were written by the finger of God (Ex. 31:18). God emphasized the fact that He is the foundation and author of the moral law. The fact that God wrote the law with His own finger in stone teaches that the law is perpetual and is meant to instill in us just how seriously God takes His law. “This was probably a symbolical indication that the law could never be wiped out, that the moral law is everlastingly valid.”¹²

The Judicial Law

A third category of biblical law is the judicial law. The judicial or civil laws of the Old Testament contained a body of laws for the ancient nation of Israel. There are civil laws which applied only to the nation of Israel. There are also civil laws which are moral case laws. These case laws are based upon the Ten Commandments and are moral in character, and as such, are binding on all nations, in all ages. Laws that reflect God’s moral character are as binding and perpetual as the Ten Commandments themselves. The moral case laws flesh out the Ten Commandments. They apply the various commandments to different situations. For example, the command “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13) involves more than just murder. The moral case laws that apply the sixth commandment to society set forth rules: to protect life from accidental death and injury (Deut. 22:8); to protect society from dangerous, incorrigible criminals (Deut. 21:18-21); to protect citizens from hatred and personal vengeance (Lev. 21:18-21), and so on. These laws are moral; they are applications of the sixth commandment. To ignore the case laws, or to argue that the case laws are no longer binding, is to gut the moral law. It is, in a sense, a severe limiting of the Ten Commandments themselves, for they were always intended by God to be a summary of the moral law.

The continuing validity and necessity of the civil laws is plainly seen in the case of sexual immorality. The authors of the New Testament presuppose the continuity of the Old Testament moral case laws when they discuss sexual ethics. “Paul appealed to the extra-Decalogical prohibition against incest (1 Cor. 5:1). The case law against homosexuality was upheld in the New Testament (1 Cor 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18).... ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ is a generalized requirement of sexual purity which includes, among other things, the duty to avoid incest, homosexuality, and bestiality (cf. Lev. 20:11-16). If the judicial case laws are now set aside, then the New Testament has a conception of sexual purity different from the Old.”¹³ The fact that bestiality is not condemned anywhere in the New Testament proves that the apostles assumed the continuity of the Old Testament moral case laws. If one argues that bestiality is prohibited by the New Testament injunctions against sexual immorality (i.e., fornication), then one has implicitly accepted the validity of the Old Testament moral case laws, for one is using Old Testament moral case laws to define “sexual immorality.” Laws regarding rape, seduction, homosexuality, prostitution, incest, indecent exposure, and so on are carefully delineated in the Old Testament case laws. To disregard these laws is to make it virtually impossible for a modern state to have a just, biblical system of judicial law.

Many Christians believe in the abiding validity of the Ten Commandments yet reject all the civil laws of Israel—even the moral case laws. This recognition of the Decalogue and rejection of the judicial laws is based on a false inference about the unique manner in which the Ten Commandments were given. For example, Ernest Kevan writes: “A consideration of the majestic accompaniments of the promulgation of the moral law will serve to exhibit its outstanding dignity.... It would be right to conclude that God gave the Law in this solemn and impressive manner in order that its authority and majesty might be more readily recognized. This dignity belongs peculiarly to the moral Law in distinction from the judicial and ceremonial; for although the judicial and ceremonial Laws were given at the same time as the moral Law, there is nevertheless a great difference between them.”¹⁴ While it is true that the Ten Commandments received special treatment by God (i.e., They were written with God’s own finger on tablets of stone, spoken directly to the people and placed in the ark of the covenant.), it is not because only the Ten Commandments were moral in nature, but because they summarized the whole moral law of God. As noted above, the number ten represents wholeness or completeness. Every moral precept in the Bible is summarized in the Decalogue. (A summary of the Decalogue is also given outside of the Decalogue “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength” [Deut. 6:5] and “…you shall love your neighbor as yourself” [Lev. 19:18]). The moral case laws contained in Israel’s civil law are an extension of the Ten Commandments. One cannot abrogate the moral case laws without abrogating the Ten Commandments themselves. Furthermore, “[t]he unique features of the decalogue were true of it prior to the establishment of the New covenant. Do the critics conclude, therefore, that only the decalogue was binding at that time, during the Old covenant? Why, then, would those features prove that the decalogue alone is binding with the coming of the New covenant? This reasoning makes no sense.”¹⁵

Much of the misunderstanding and refusal to recognize the moral case laws as binding stems from the fact that a number of the judicial laws have indeed been abrogated. The judicial law not only contained case laws that applied the Ten Commandments to the family and society, they also contained some laws that were local and temporal, that were never meant to apply to the nations outside of Israel. For example, the New Testament teaches that the land of Canaan was but a type of the believer’s citizenship in heaven (Heb. 11:8-16). The kingdom of God has been taken away from the Jewish nation and given to the church (Matt. 21:43). Therefore, laws regarding political loyalty to Israel and defending Israel with physical means are not applicable today. Laws which dealt specifically with the land of Israel (e.g., the laws of jubilee, the cities of refuge) also do not continue. The judicial law contained regulations designed to protect the lineage of the coming Messiah (e.g., levirate marriage and the requirement to keep plots of land within family bloodlines); with the coming of Jesus Christ, these laws are no longer necessary. These laws cannot even be applied to modern Israel; the documents proving family lineage and proper succession of family plots were destroyed in A. D. 70 by the Romans. Other aspects of Old Testament Jewish society that were never intended to be binding on the Gentile nations are the Jewish form of civil government, the location of the capitol, the organization of the military and the method of tax collection (many Theonomists include the method of execution). The judicial laws of Israel have ceased, except those laws which teach abiding universal moral principles.

Some believers attempt to circumvent the moral case laws by arguing that these laws applied to a culture far different from the one which exists today. While it is true that our culture is different from ancient Israel’s, the moral principles which underlie the case laws can and should be applied to every society. For example, the Israelites were commanded by God to put a parapet or fence on their roofs, “that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it” (Deut. 22:8). Few Americans have patios on their rooftops as did the ancient Israelites, but many do have balconies or swimming pools that need to be fenced in the same way. The moral case laws continue, but need to be applied to modern situations. Would Christians argue that it is permissible to leave the railing off balconies in high rise apartments because such a regulation is only discussed in the Old Testament?

The only alternatives to applying the principles of the moral case laws to nations today are: 1.) to argue that all law is relativistic and conditioned by culture; 2.) to assert some sort of natural law theory in which sinful man is free to ignore the clear, inspired precepts of God and instead reason from nature; or 3.) to attempt to derive our own moral case laws from the Ten Commandments and the moral laws repeated in the New Testament. This would mean that the inspired, infallible moral case laws of the Old Testament would be ignored, while fallible sinful men attempt to formulate their own case laws from the general moral commands. History has shown the repeated failure of these alternatives.

Does God’s law apply today? Are civil governments obligated to apply the moral law, including the moral case laws, toward modern society? Are Christians obligated to follow the moral law as a guide to sanctification, or are they simply to follow the Spirit’s leading in a subjective, mystical sense? We live in a time when the church (both Evangelical and Reformed) has to a certain extent an arbitrary, schizophrenic view of God’s law. Many Fundamentalist churches teach that the whole Old Testament law has been abrogated by Jesus Christ. Yet in the battle against secular humanism, it is not uncommon to hear Fundamentalists quoting from the Old Testament case laws in order to stem the tide of anti-Christian statism. Many of those in Reformed and Presbyterian circles like to think of themselves as anti-Dispensational champions of God’s moral law. Yet many, if not most, of those in Bible-believing Presbyterian circles do not believe that the moral case laws found in the Old Testament civil law and their accompanying penal sanctions apply to modern nations. Many have also accepted the idea of religious pluralism (i.e., equal status for atheism, Satanism, Buddhism, Islam, Arminianism, etc.), and believe that the civil government does not have the right to uphold the first table of the law (i.e., punish open heretics, blasphemers, rank idolaters, etc.). The only way to have a biblical understanding of God’s law is to examine the passages of Scripture which discuss the place of God’s law in the New covenant, and the relation of Christians to that law. We believe that the Bible teaches that God’s moral law and the moral case laws “of the Old Testament are still binding on society in the New Testament era, unless annulled or otherwise transformed by a New Testament teaching, either directly or by implication. In short, there is judicial and moral continuity between the two testaments.”¹⁶

Matthew 5:17-18

A crucial passage regarding God’s law comes from Christ Himself in the Sermon on the Mount. “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (Mt. 5:17-18). Jesus Christ in this section of the Sermon on the Mount deals with God’s law and righteousness. Christ first sets out to eliminate any misconceptions of His view and teaching regarding the Old Testament Law. “He says that everything He is going to teach is in absolute harmony with the entire teaching of the Old Testament Scriptures.”¹⁷ Jesus in no way intends to destroy, abrogate or contradict God’s inscripturated word. In verses 19 and following Jesus explains how His teaching is in complete harmony with God’s law, while the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees is a perversion of God’s law. “They buried the divine oracles under a load of tradition and regarded the doing of the law to be the only way to obtain salvation. Therefore in reality they were the ones who were setting aside the Old Testament. With Jesus, the case was entirely different.”¹⁸

In verse 17 Jesus begins His teaching with very strong speech; the Greek means literally, “Do not begin to think.” Jesus Christ emphatically forbids people even to begin to think that He came to abolish God’s law. “The implication is that Christ knew the danger that His hearers or scribal opponents might misunderstand or willfully distort His doctrine of the law, so He commands them not even to start thinking that the Messiah abrogates the law.”¹⁹ The idea that Jesus came to abolish God’s law should be anathema to the Christian. Christ tells us emphatically not to entertain such a foolish thought even for a moment. Thus the idea, now popular in Evangelical seminaries, that the whole Old Testament law comes to an end in Christ, and a new law flows out of Christ, is unbiblical.

Jesus did not come to destroy or abolish God’s law. The Greek word kataluo (translated “destroy” in the King James Version and the New King James Version, or “abolish” in the New American Standard Bible, New International Version, and the Revised Standard Version) in first century Greek literature, with regard to civil law, meant to deprive by force, to annul, to abrogate and to disregard. The same verb was used to describe the tearing down, dismantling, destroying and demolition of buildings. Thus, Christ says that He did not come to do away with, annul or repeal the law; on the contrary, He came to fulfill it.

The expression “the law and the prophets” is repeatedly used in the New Testament to denote the whole Old Testament (e.g., Mt. 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Lk. 16:16; 24:44; Rom. 3:21). When used in conjunction with the prophets, the law generally refers to the five books of Moses. Thus, when Jesus says “the law,” He means the entire law: moral, judicial, and ceremonial. Although in Matthew 5:21ff., Jesus focuses His attention on the moral law, given the broad terminology noted above, one should not restrict verse 17 to the moral law alone. Since in the whole section, from verse 18 through verse 48, Jesus concerns Himself with God’s commandments, His use of the word “prophets” probably refers to the prophetic exposition of the law. The prophets called people back to obedience to the law. “The concern of Matthew 5:17 is Christ’s doctrine as it bears upon Theonomy (God’s Law). While ‘Law or Prophets’ broadly denotes the Older Testament Scriptures, Jesus’ stress is upon the ethical content, the commandments of the Older Testament.”²⁰

Jesus said concerning the law: “I did not come to destroy, annul, or abrogate the law but to fulfill it.” What did Jesus mean when He said fulfill? The most popular interpretation of this word among Evangelicals reflects a total misunderstanding of the word. They propose that Christ came to finish or bring an end to the law. Although the Greek verb plerao (to fulfill) can mean to bring to an end in certain contexts, it would be absurd to give it that meaning in this context. Christ wants to eliminate any idea that He came to destroy or abrogate the law. Would He accomplish this by saying, “Do not think that I came to abrogate the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to annul the law but to bring it to an end?” Not only are such words self-contradictory, but if that had been Christ’s meaning, His audience would have expressed shock and outrage.

Another popular interpretation is that Christ came to replace the Old Testament law with a new law—“the law of Christ.” The Old Testament law flows into Christ and is fulfilled in Him; then Jesus establishes His own law. “The phrase can be viewed as a way of stating the new code of conduct applicable to New covenant believers. As the O.T. had its Law of Moses, so the N.T. has its Law of Christ.”²¹ Some who hold this position argue that Jesus has replaced the Old Testament law with the law of the Spirit. A favorite proof text is Galatians 5:18: “If you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.” But, this interpretation is unscriptural for a number of reasons. First, the verb to fulfill never means “to replace” in the New Testament. Second, the idea of Christ replacing the law suffers from the same objections noted above regarding Jesus coming to abrogate the law. To replace the law is to ‘end’ it or ‘annul’ it. Furthermore, Galatians 5:18 teaches that Christians are not under the law as a way of justification; however, they are under the law as a way of life and sanctification. R. J. Rushdoony writes: “In Galatians 2:21, the contrast is between justification by law and justification by the grace of God through Jesus Christ; in the use of law as a means of justification, no righteousness can be gained. In Galatians 5:16-18, the contrast is between the way of ‘the flesh,’ fallen, unaided human nature, and the way of ‘the Spirit,’ the redeemed and aided new man. The law is associated in this context with ‘the flesh,’ so that the reference is again clearly to the misuse of the law as a way of justification.”²²

Another view is that Christ came to perfect the law; that is, Christ supplements it and adds an internal aspect to it. This view is based on a misunderstanding of God’s Old Testament law. The idea that the Old Testament was concerned with only external behavior is simply not true. For example, the tenth commandment covers unlawful lust in all its parameters. The command, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal. 5:14) comes from Leviticus 19:18. Even Jesus’ command to “love your enemies” (Mt. 5:44), is an application of the Old Testament laws which teach the proper treatment of strangers and sojourners. The Old Testament emphasized the need for inward heart obedience and repeatedly condemned the Jewish people’s sinful drift toward externalism and ritualism. David said, “Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts, and in the hidden part You make me to know wisdom.... Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.... The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart” (Ps. 51:6, 10, 17; cf. Ps. 40:8; 119:10-11; Hos. 6:6; Pr. 16:18-19; Mic. 2:1; Job 31:1; etc.). Jesus was not subjecting His disciples to a new, higher ethical standard but was countering the perversion of the scribes and Pharisees who externalized the law and rendered it void by their additions.

If Jesus added to the law, either in His own teaching or through His apostles after the ascension, one would expect to find new ethical standards in the New Testament. There are no new ethical standards in the New Testament. The difference in the New covenant is not a new ethical standard but Christ’s completed work and His sending the Holy Spirit to empower and enable believers to more faithfully obey God’s law. “Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it: the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.”²³

Thus far consideration has been given to interpretations of fulfill that are unbiblical and outside the pale of classical Reformed interpretation. The next four views of fulfill in Matthew 5:17 reflect other New Testament teachings on the law and are common among Reformed interpreters. The first view is that Christ came to obey the law. The second view is that Christ came to confirm or uphold the law in exhaustive detail. The third view combines other views. For example, Christ came to fulfill prophecy, to perfectly obey the law and to uphold or confirm all of its precepts. The fourth view is that Christ came to uphold or confirm the moral law.

An excellent representative of the first view is D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: “The real meaning of the word fulfill is to carry out, to fulfill in the sense of giving full obedience to it, literally carrying out everything that has been said and stated in the law and the prophets.... There we see the central claim which is made by our Lord. It is, in other words, that all the law and all the prophets point to Him and will be fulfilled in Him down to the smallest detail. Everything that is in the law and the prophets culminates in Christ, and He is the fulfillment of them.”²⁴ Is it true that Jesus Christ perfectly obeyed the law? Yes, absolutely: “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). “Christ also suffered for us...Who committed no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth” (1 Pet. 2:21-22); “And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin” (1 Jn. 3:5). Did Jesus Christ perfectly fulfill the prophecies regarding the Messiah given in the Old Testament? Yes, He was both God and man (Isa. 9:6). He was born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14), in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:12), and so on. Although this interpretation is in harmony with the New Testament, the immediate context favors the second view.

Christ came not to abolish the law but to confirm or establish the law. “The meaning is, that ‘not so much as the smallest loss of authority or vitality shall ever come over the law.’ The expression, ‘till all be fulfilled,’ is much the same in meaning as ‘it shall be had in undiminished and enduring honour, from its greatest to its least requirements.’”²⁵ Matthew Henry concurs: “The rule which Christ came to establish exactly agreed with the Scriptures of the Old Testament.... ‘Let not the pious Jews, who have an affection for the law and the prophets, fear that I come to destroy them....’ He asserts the perpetuity of it: that not only he designed not the abrogation of it, but that it should never be abrogated (v. 18).”²⁶ Fulfill refers not to Christ’s perfect obedience but to His teaching or doctrine regarding the law.

There are a number of indicators within the context which support this interpretation. First, “the context of Matthew 5:17 indicates that plerao (fulfill) refers to Jesus’ work as a teacher. There are no allusions to predictions of the Older Testament and the question of Jesus’ good works, or of His own ethical holiness in behavior, so they are not really at stake in this passage. But the issues of moral authority, pronouncement, and direction are prominent. The teaching of Jesus, not His doing of the law, is decisive here; the context speaks of Jesus’ doctrine, not His life.”²⁷ Second, the word fulfill is set in direct opposition to the words “destroy” or “abrogate.” One does not annul, abrogate or destroy the law by breaking it. The person who transgresses the law destroys himself, not the law. “Whoever commits adultery with a woman lacks understanding; he who does so destroys his own soul” (Pr. 6:32). The natural antithesis to abrogating the law is upholding the law. Jesus allays the fear of the Jews that the messianic advent meant an abrogation of the Old Testament law. Third, in verse 18 Jesus says that not “one jot or one tittle” of the law’s content or teaching will pass away. “In connection, then, with the immediately preceding verse, in which Jesus had said that he had not come to set aside the law or the prophets but to fulfill them, he now, sharply contradicting what the opponents must have been saying about his attitude, reaffirms his complete loyalty to the sacred oracles.”²⁸ Fourth, in verse 19, Jesus warns “his disciples, carefully to preserve the law, and shows them the danger of the neglect and contempt of it.”²⁹ Whoever shall loose or annul the authority or obligation of the least of the commandments of the Old Testament law “shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:19). “It follows from verse 19 that keeping the law and teaching it to others in the manner in which it should be taught is very important.”³⁰ In the rest of chapter 5, Jesus “proceeds to expound the law in some particular instances, and to vindicate it from the corrupt glosses which those expositors [i.e., the Pharisees] had put upon it. He adds not anything new, only limits and restrains some permissions which had been abused: and so as to the precepts, shows the breadth, strictness, and spiritual nature of them, adding explanatory statutes that made them more clear, and tended much toward the perfecting of our obedience to them.”³¹ Given all these considerations, plerao (fulfill) is best understood in the sense of establish or confirm. “Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 that He came to confirm and restore the full measure, intent, and purpose of the Older Testamental law. He sees the whole process of revelation deposited in the Older Testament as finding its validation in Him—its actual embodiment.... Plerao is subject to the norm of both literal Older Testamental wording and the meaning of salvation manifested in Jesus Christ. Therefore, plerao should be taken to mean ‘confirm and restore in full measure.’”³²

Any view of Matthew 5:17-18 which says that Christ came to abolish or replace the Old Testament law must be rejected as unbiblical. Such a view has Christ saying, “I came not to abrogate the law but to eliminate it.” Would Christ contradict Himself in the same sentence? No. Jesus Christ is a friend and champion of the law. He commands strict obedience to the law, and He commends those who faithfully teach the law to others.

What about the interpretation of fulfill that gives the word multiple meanings? It is common among some of the older commentaries to discuss three or four different senses of fulfill when discussing verse 17. For example, Christ came to fulfill prophecy, to fulfill Old Testament types, to establish the law, and to enable the elect to have greater obedience to the law through His redemptive work. Although all of those things are true, one should not read back into a text more meanings than were intended by the author. “You may not avoid or alter the linguistic meaning of a text by looking at other biblical teachings out of the corner of your eye. You may import whatever theological distinctions and qualifications which are appropriate into the matter as an interpreter and preacher of the text, but you may not read them into that text (in the name of ‘exegesis’), reading them out.”³³ While there is nothing wrong with discussing the different ways Christ fulfills the Old Testament as an application of a text, giving a word multiple meanings at the same time defies both logic and normal word usage. One must avoid importing preconceived ideas into a text, even when these preconceived ideas are biblical and taught in other parts of the New Testament.

A biblical understanding of Matthew 5:17-19 is crucial if believers are going to have a proper understanding of God’s Old Testament law. If Jesus Christ came to completely abolish the Old Testament law, then only what is repeated in the New Testament can be applied to Christians and society. But if Jesus Christ explicitly taught the binding validity of God’s Old Testament law for the New covenant era, then one must presume the continuity of the Old Testament law.

An obvious objection to the interpretation that Christ did not come to destroy the law but to uphold, confirm, and establish the law is that the New Testament modifies and sets aside certain laws. The New Testament has clearly altered laws related to the land of Israel’s inheritance (1 Pet. 1:3-5; Heb. 11:16; 13:12-14) and the identity of God’s people³⁴ (Mt. 21:43; Gal. 3:7, 29; Eph. 1:13-14). Furthermore, the ceremonial laws have been put away by Christ and His perfect redemption (Acts 10; Gal. 3:9, 10; Col. 2:16; Heb 9-10). Although this appears to be a problem, the fact that certain laws were typological and were never intended to continue in their Old covenant form does not contradict Christ’s assertion.

The Bible refers to ceremonial laws as “shadows” (Heb. 10:1; 8:4-5), “inferior” (Heb. 9:11-15), “obsolete” (Heb. 8:13), “symbolic” (Heb. 9:9), “ineffectual” (Heb. 10:4), and as “weak and beggarly elements” (Gal. 4:9-11). The ceremonial laws were never meant to stand on their own. A type must have an anti-type. When the reality comes, it takes the place of the shadow. Thus, the ceremonial laws that pointed to the person and work of Christ are upheld and continue in principle in Him. Therefore, the person who believes in Jesus Christ (the anti-type) has obeyed the ceremonies in Him. “In Him you were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands” (Col. 2:11). A person who rejects Jesus Christ yet keeps the ceremonial laws violates the ceremonial law because the reality has come. “Calvin points out that the meaning of the ceremonies is eternal, while their outward form and use are temporal; consequently Christ confirms even the ceremonial law. ‘That man does not break ceremonies who omits what is shadowy, but retains their effect.’... These ceremonial laws are organically connected with Christ and His work in salvation history. The truth depicted in these ritual commands is embodied in Christ and is valid yet today. Only the pre-incarnation use of these ceremonial procedures is removed for the Christian in the New covenant—because they were observed once for all by and in the person and work of Christ. The principle involved in these particular ordinances is confirmed, not repealed in Christ’s coming.”³⁵

Another interpretation is that Christ came to establish or uphold the moral law. This interpretation avoids the need to explain how Jesus upholds the whole law in exhaustive detail while in a sense abrogating a large portion of the law by His sacrificial death. This interpretation is based on the immediate context and the analogy of Scripture. After Christ states His position on the law in verses 17 to 19, He discusses the need for righteousness and refutes the scribes’ and Pharisees’ false interpretation of the moral law. He tells His disciples that their righteousness must surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees (v. 20) and He refutes His opponents’ false interpretation of the sixth commandment (vs. 21-26), the seventh commandment (vs. 27-32), the law regarding oaths (vs. 33-37), the law of retaliation (vs. 38-42) and the law of love (vs. 43-48). Our Lord concerns Himself not with ceremonial ordinances but with specific abuses of the Ten Commandments and certain moral case laws. Does this interpretation refute the central thesis of Theonomy? No. It does not. If in Matthew 5:17ff. Jesus was arguing for the continuance of the Ten Commandments and all the moral case laws into the New covenant era, then Theonomy is thoroughly scriptural for that is the Theonomic position.

Some Christians have used a variation of this argument to assert that Christ was teaching that only the Ten Commandments continue into the New covenant era. This teaching must be rejected for the following reasons. First, Jesus did not restrict His discussion to the Ten Commandments but also discussed the laws regarding oaths and retaliation. Second, the Ten Commandments are not the whole moral law but are a summary of the whole moral law including all the moral case laws. Third, those who want to restrict Jesus’ teaching to the Ten Commandments need to explain how laws regarding homosexuality, rape, incest, bestiality, theft, the protection of life, aiding the poor and so on are not moral but positivistic. It is obvious that many civil laws are moral applications of the Ten Commandments. Thus, they cannot be set aside without setting aside the Ten Commandments themselves. Fourth, long after Christ preached the sermon on the mount He rebuked the Pharisees and scribes for disregarding the moral case law concerning incorrigible, young adults (cf. Mt. 15:14; Deut. 21:18-20; Ex. 21:15). The omniscient, sinless Son of God certainly would not contradict His own teaching regarding God’s law.

Matthew 5:17-19 teaches that Christians should assume the continuity of the Old Testament laws into the New covenant era unless there are clear theological and exegetical reasons otherwise. There are no New Testament texts which (when understood biblically) can be used to disregard the whole Old Testament law. The assumption of a radical discontinuity between the Testaments is unscriptural and is primarily the legacy of Dispensationalism. When Christians simplistically argue “against applying an Old Testament command because it comes from the Old Testament (i.e., was intended for Israel, was part of the theocracy, is not revealed in the New covenant, comes from the era of law and not grace, is too horrible to follow today, etc.), he is”³⁶ violating Matthew 5:17-19, covenant theology and biblical hermeneutics.

Galatians and the Law

A number of passages in Galatians have been used by Dispensational scholars to argue that the Old Testament law has been abrogated by the coming of Jesus Christ. A brief consideration of some of these passages is necessary in order to have an understanding of God’s law as it applies to the present day. In order to understand these passages, one must first consider the historical context of the book.

Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatians to deal with certain Judaizers in the church. “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:6-7). The Judaizers believed that in order for Gentiles to be justified by God, they first had to be circumcised and become Jews. These are the same type of false teachers described in the book of Acts.³⁷ “And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’.... some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses’” (Acts 15:1, 5).

In interpreting Galatians, one must keep in mind that the Judaizers were unbiblical in two different ways. First, they asserted that in order for a Gentile to become a Christian he must first become a Jew in the Old covenant sense; that is, he must submit to circumcision and the whole Mosaic law, including the ceremonial laws. Second, the Judaizers taught that believers must keep the law in order to be saved. They taught a system of human merit, of works righteousness in addition to faith in Christ in order to be justified before God. These heretics believed the Pharisaical lie of salvation by law. In the book of Galatians Paul dealt with these two unbiblical views. Paul wanted the Galatian believers to have a proper understanding of salvation and the true purpose of the Old Testament law.

Justification

The paramount issue in this epistle is justification by faith alone. Paul says: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Gal. 2:16). Paul refutes the pharisaical notion that man can become right before God by obedience to the law. Thus, when Paul says, “For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God” (Gal. 2:19), he does not mean that the law as a moral guide to life is dead, but rather that the law has shown me that I am dead, that I cannot save myself through the law. The law demands absolute moral perfection in thought, word, and deed.

That standard Paul had been unable to meet. In fact, he had missed the target by far. In the meantime, moreover, the law had not relaxed its demands, nor its threats of punishment, nor its actual flagellations. It had not given Paul the peace with God which he so ardently desired. It had scourged him until, by the marvelous grace of God, he had found Christ (because Christ had first sought and found him!) and peace in Him. Thus, through the law he had died to the law. Through the law he had discovered what a great sinner he was, and how utterly incapable in himself of extricating himself from his position of despair and ruin (cf. Rom. 3:20; 7:7). Thus the law had been his custodian to conduct him to Christ (Gal. 3:24). And when by Christ he had been made alive, the law, viewed as being in and by itself a means unto salvation and as a cruel taskmaster who assigns tasks impossible of fulfillment and who lays down rules and regulations endless in their ramifications, had left him cold, dead like a corpse, without any response whatever.³⁸

Paul emphasizes that it is Christ who saves and not the law: “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, Christ died in vain” (Gal. 2:21). In other words, if it were possible to attain to a perfect righteousness by which one could stand in God’s presence, then Christ did not have to die in order to bring men unto God.

Some commentators have attempted to show that Paul’s concern in the book of Galatians was not justification by law, but sanctification by law. This false interpretation is based upon Galatians 3:2-3: “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?” Dispensationalists have argued that Paul is saying that the Old Testament law has no place in the sanctification of believers. The Dispensational approach to this passage is unscriptural and, thankfully, quite rare. In verse 2, Paul teaches that becoming a Christian and receiving the Holy Spirit can only occur through faith in Jesus Christ. Remember that elsewhere Paul teaches that baptism in the Holy Spirit and becoming a Christian are coterminous (1 Cor. 12:13; Rom. 8:9). No one, Paul says, has ever received the Holy Spirit through works of righteousness. Paul then sets up a contrast between the Spirit and the flesh. He points out the absurdity of the Judaizer’s position. If faith in Jesus Christ alone results in the baptism in the Holy Spirit, why, then, were the Galatians seeking perfection through personal merit? The Galatians were no longer looking solely to the merits of Christ for salvation but were trusting in the flesh, in works of righteousness, in circumcision, in ceremonies, and so on. The idea that perfection before God can come in any way apart from Christ is insanity. Paul calls it foolishness. “If one bases his hope for this life or the next upon anything apart from Christ he is placing confidence in flesh.”³⁹ The idea that Paul is arguing against the use of the Old Testament moral laws as a guide for sanctification is not taught in Galatians or anywhere else. If we do not use the moral law as a guide for conduct and sanctification, how, then, are we to even identify sin? Paul says, “for by law is knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). “We know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully” (1 Tim. 1:8).

The Law as a Tutor

Those who teach that God’s Old Testament law has been completely abrogated by Christ use Galatians 3:23-25 as a proof text for their assertion: “But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” In order to understand this passage one must answer two questions. First, what does Paul mean by the term law? Second, what does he mean when he says we are no longer under a tutor? In order to properly answer these questions, one must keep in mind the historical context of the book and the specific problems that Paul was dealing with. The Judaizers had two serious doctrinal errors. They believed in salvation through Christ and human merit. And they wanted Gentiles to become Jews in order to become Christians; that is, they expected Gentiles to completely follow the Mosaic ceremonial laws. This second error is clearly in Paul’s mind when he condemns circumcision (Gal. 5:2-3) and when he refers to the rudiments or elements in Galatians 4:3, 9. “But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain” (Gal. 4:9-11). Since Paul is concerned with counteracting the Judaizers’ view that Gentiles are obligated to keep the whole system of Jewish ceremonial laws, it is clear that he is speaking of law as the Mosaic administration of God’s covenant with the Jews. Paul is focusing upon what is distinctive to the Mosaic administration. He is telling the Galatians why it is no longer necessary to follow the ceremonial laws of the Old covenant.

This view of law is supported by Galatians 4:21-31 where Paul contrasts the two covenants. “For these things are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all” (Gal. 4:24-26). When Paul speaks about the “Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage,” he probably has in mind more than bondage of the ceremonial law. This bondage could include the false pharisaical notions regarding salvation by law current at that time in Jerusalem. The apostle says that the true Christian church is free from the bondage of the ceremonial law. Christians are free from the Old covenant administration with its types, shadows and ceremonies. Furthermore, Christians are not under bondage to the false notions regarding the law as a source of human merit unto salvation, as taught by the religious leaders in Jerusalem. “The church of the Gentiles was not typified in Hagar but in Sarah; from whence the scope of the apostle is to conclude, that we are not under the law, obliged to Judaical observances, but are freed from them, and are justified by faith in Christ alone, not by works of the law.”⁴⁰

What, then, does Paul mean when he says that those who have come to Christ are no longer under a tutor? Given the meaning of law discussed above, Paul is saying that the ceremonial law served as an instructor in salvation by grace. It taught the Old covenant people of God about the perfect redemptive work of the coming Messiah through types. But since Christ has come and offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice “once for all” (Heb. 10:10), the tutor is no longer needed. Under the old administration, the Jews were saved by faith in the coming Messiah, not by their works. But the Old covenant administration with its types, shadows and ceremonies was inferior to the New covenant. Paul compares the Old covenant administration to the immature life of slavery under a tutor. But New covenant believers are described as sons, as those who receive the full rights of adoption (Gal. 4:1-7). John Calvin writes:

A schoolmaster is not appointed for the whole life, but only for childhood, as etymology of the Greek word [paidagogos] implies. Besides, in training a child, the object is to prepare him, by the instructions of childhood, for maturer years. The comparison applies in both respects to the law, for its authority was limited to a particular age, and its whole object was to prepare its scholars in such a manner, that when its elementary instructions were closed, they might make progress worthy of manhood. And so he adds, that it was our schoolmaster [eis Christon] unto Christ. The grammarian, when he is trained as a boy, delivers him into the hands of another, who conducts him through the higher branches of a finished education. In like manner, the law was the grammar of theology, which, after carrying its scholars a short way, handed them over to faith to be completed. Thus, Paul compares the Jews to children, and us to advanced youth.⁴¹

The Law as a Covenant

Dispensationalists have misunderstood this passage in Galatians because they fail to recognize the distinction between the law as a covenant and the rule of law. After the fall of man in the garden of Eden, God has always dealt with man on the basis of the covenant of grace.⁴² That is, from the fall of Adam until the second coming, anyone who is saved, is saved by grace through faith. No one, from the fall to the consummation, can be saved by his own works of righteousness. Even the sacrifices of animals under the Old covenant did not really save; “for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). The sacrifices were types that pointed to Jesus Christ who “by one offering has perfected forever those who are being sanctified” (Heb 10:14). Galatians 3:21 teaches that the law of God is not against the promise. The law as a covenant was an expression of the covenant of grace. The shadows, type and ceremonies pointed to Jesus Christ and taught the people to trust in the shed blood of the coming Messiah (Isa. 53:3-12), “[t]he lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (Jn. 1:29). The law as a covenant (the Mosaic administration) ended with the coming of Christ and the New covenant because it served its purpose and was no longer needed. The shadows, ceremonies and types are replaced by the reality, Jesus Christ. A sailor who is given a model of a ship to learn from, no longer needs the model when the ship is in port. The covenant of law is now ended, but the rule of law is eternal.⁴³

The Law as a Curse

Another manner in which believers are no longer under the law is that believers are not under the curse of the law. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’), that the blessings of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal. 3:13-14). Paul says that by Christ’s death on the cross, believers are set free from the curse or penalty of the law. Anyone who commits sin is under a curse. God said, “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:4). John the Baptist declared that “he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (Jn. 3:36). Paul said that the “law brings about wrath” (Rom. 4:15). “Having shown the absolute demand of God upon a man’s life, having defined what sin is, having convicted man of sin and shown him the nature of sinful rebellion, the law pronounces the just condemnation of God upon the sinner. The law shuts up all men under sin and seals off any escape to life for them in their own strength (Gal. 3:22). The sinner finds himself lost and sold under sin; the magnitude of his dilemma is revealed in the words, ‘It stands written that accursed is everyone who does not continue in all things having been written in the law-book to do them’ (Gal. 3:10).”⁴⁴ Jesus Christ bore the guilt and the penalty for the sins of His people on the cross at Calvary. The wrath of God that we deserved for our sins was placed upon Christ. But the fact that Christ bore the judgment that we deserved does not mean that believers are no longer under law as a guide for daily living and sanctification. Such a view “is antinomianism, and alien to St. Paul. St. Paul attacked man-made laws, and man-made interpretations of the law, as the way of justification; the law can never justify; it does sanctify, and there is no sanctification by lawlessness.”⁴⁵

The Law Convicts Man of Sin

Christians are not under law as a covenant, nor are they under law as a curse. A third way in which Christians are no longer under law is as a means of conviction to lead us to Christ. Paul says: “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore, by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:19-20). It is a mistake to argue that God’s law is evil, bad or harsh. The law is not the problem; man is the problem. Man has an evil heart that loves sin. One of the reasons God has given the law is to expose sin, to convict rebellious hearts. “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said ‘You shall not covet.’ But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Therefore, the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good” (Rom. 7:7-12).

From his own personal experience Paul knew that “the law convicted him of his sin and sinfulness.”⁴⁶ As a Pharisee, Paul was taught that law-keeping was an external matter, something achievable by man. He says, “I was alive apart from the law” (v. 9). That is, apart from a biblical understanding of the internal aspect of law-keeping, Paul was self-deceived, self-righteous and self-complacent. But when the command “Thou shalt not covet” (v. 7) came into his consciousness, Paul’s complacent self-assurance came to an end. “And the commandment, which was unto life, this was found by me to be unto death.” The reference is to the original purpose of the law. “The purpose of law in man’s original estate was not to give occasion to sin, but to direct and regulate man’s life in the path of righteousness and, therefore, to guard and promote life. By reason of sin, however, that same law promotes death, in that it gives occasion to sin. ‘And the wages of sin is death.’ The more law is registered in our consciousness, the more sin is aroused to action, and law as law, can exercise no restraining or remedial effect.”⁴⁷

Paul the Pharisee was truly a pitiful creature. He expected salvation through the law, but the law cannot change unregenerate hearts. He expected happiness and holiness through the law, but instead he descended into the despair of guilt, condemnation, misery, wrath, and the displeasure of a righteous, just and holy God. “Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me” (Rom. 7:11). Sin deceived Paul. All of Paul’s hopes and dreams of self-righteous bliss were dashed on the rocks of sin and inner corruption. What Paul the Pharisee wanted the law to do, it could not do. Not because the law was defective, or because the law was evil, but because the law (in the post-fall world) was not designed by God to secure our salvation. “Such is the experience of every believer, in the ordinary progress of his inward life. He first turns to the law, to his own self-righteousness and strength, but he soon finds that all the law can do is only to aggravate his guilt and misery.”⁴⁸ God uses the law to plow the furrows of man’s heart. Once he knows his guilt, once he knows that he cannot obey the law, he is brought to despair and, then he runs to the cross of Christ. The awful burden of guilt is washed away by Christ’s blood and His perfect righteousness. His perfect law-keeping is given to us as a gift.

Although the law cannot save, it prepares the elect for salvation. Many commentators argue that Paul’s reference to the law as a tutor or guardian which leads one to Christ that one might be justified by faith (Gal. 3:24) refers to this function of the law. Before one can receive the Lord Jesus Christ he must be shown what sin is and how helpless he is. The law exposes many areas of one’s life which would not have otherwise been recognized as sins. “It arouses sin, increasing its power, and making it, both in itself and in our consciousness, exceedingly sinful.... Before the gospel can be embraced as a means of deliverance from sin, we must feel that we are involved in corruption and misery.”⁴⁹ “It is essential to declare the commandments in order to show the sinner his heart of hatred toward God and enmity toward men. Only then will he flee to the grace of God in Jesus Christ to provide him with righteousness and love.... When you see that men have been wounded by the law, then it is time to pour in the balm of Gospel oil. It is the sharp needle of the law that makes way for the scarlet thread of the Gospel.”⁵⁰

Natural Law vs. Biblical Law

The idea that civil governments are obligated to apply the Bible’s moral case laws to modern society is viewed with alarm and disdain by the vast majority of Bible-believing Christians. Those who reject the abiding validity of the Old Testament moral case laws need to do two things. First, they must offer a biblical explanation as to why the moral case laws are no longer binding. Second, they must provide a biblical alternative. If a massive revival of Christianity occurred in America, and most of the people and political leaders were converted to Christ, how would America’s judicial system be affected? How would America develop a biblical system of law without the guidance of the Old Testament moral case laws? A brief examination of some of the options offered by those who reject the Old Testament civil laws will show that those who reject these laws have not yet offered a biblical alternative.

One popular strategy is basically to ignore the whole question. Ultra-Dispensationalists teach that the earth and the nations therein belong to Satan. The earth is becoming progressively more evil over time, and the secret rapture is going to occur at any moment. Thus, the whole question of Christian civil government is irrelevant. Since the nations of the earth will never be converted to Christ and discipled by His word, why waste time even discussing godly rule? This option must be rejected as unscriptural because it ignores Christ’s great commission (Matt. 28:18ff.), and Christ’s kingship over the nations (cf. Ps. 2). Christ commanded His church to disciple all nations. Through the preaching of the Gospel and the teaching of God’s word, all nations are to be progressively brought under Christ’s rule. Theologian A. A. Hodge reminds us of our responsibility as Christians: “It is our duty as far as lies in our power, immediately to organize human society and all its institutions and organs upon a distinctly Christian basis. Indifference or impartiality here between the law of the kingdom and the law of the world, or of its prince, the devil, is utter treason to the King of Righteousness. The Bible, the great statute-book of the kingdom, explicitly lays down principles which, when candidly applied, will regulate the action of every human being in all relations. There can be no compromise. The King said, with regard to all descriptions of moral agents in all spheres of activity, ‘He that is not with me is against me.’ If the national life in general is organized upon non-Christian principles, the churches which are embraced within the universal assimilating power of that nation will not be able to preserve their integrity.”⁵¹

The hyper-Dispensational answer to civil government and social problems is a flight from biblical responsibility and a rejection of the dominion mandate. “It is a modern heresy that holds that the law of God has no meaning nor any binding force for man today. It is an aspect of the influence of humanistic and evolutionary thought on the church, and it posits an evolving, developing god. This ‘dispensational’ god expressed himself in law in an earlier age, then later expressed himself by grace alone, and is now perhaps to express himself in still another way. But this is not the God of Scripture, whose grace and law remain the same in every age, because He, as the sovereign and absolute Lord, changes not, nor does He need to change.”⁵²

Christians who reject the Old Testament judicial law (including the moral case laws) and yet believe in the abiding validity of the Ten Commandments could attempt to develop a system of case laws based on the Decalogue. This raises the obvious question: which system of moral case laws is superior, that which is divinely inspired, perfect, just, and infallible, or that which is developed by sinful men and thus contains guesswork, errors, injustices and so on? The answer is obvious. This fact may explain why those who reject the judicial law as binding, yet embrace the Decalogue, have not even attempted to develop a detailed system of Christian civil law. This may also explain why those authors (e.g., Charles Colson) who are hostile to God’s judicial law system keep dipping into it for judicial ideas. There is no other place to go that clearly and infallibly reveals God’s will in these areas. The problem today is that Christians want to pick and choose from the judicial laws as they see fit. If a person likes a certain law (e.g., restitution), that law is accepted and discussed, but if a law or penalty appears harsh (i.e., death penalty for incorrigible teenagers) that law is rejected as for another time and place. Selective Dispensationalism is arbitrary and sinful. Only God has the authority to repeal His law. Therefore, if any judicial (civil) law is rejected, there must be clear exegetical reasons for its rejection.

The most popular option for those who reject the validity of the Old Testament judicial laws is to fall back on some sort of Christian natural law theory. Christian natural law theory proposes that God created in man and in the universe ethical principles which can be known by man. These principles are universal and binding on all men. Thus, general revelation and God’s common grace are all that nations need to rule justly. The idea that natural revelation apart from God’s judicial law is the standard for the civil laws of nations is unbiblical and irrational for several reasons.

First, it implies that God has two ethical systems that are separate and distinct from each other. In reality, the Bible teaches that God has only one ethical standard. “The fact is that all of the Mosaic laws (in their moral demands, in distinction from their redemptive provisions) are reflected in general revelation; to put it another way, the moral obligations communicated through both means of divine communication are identical (Rom. 1:18-21, 25, 32; 2:14-15; 3:9, 19-20, 23). Scripture never suggests that God has two sets of ethical standards or two moral codes, the one (for Gentiles) being an abridgement of the other (for Jews). Rather, He has one set of commandments which are communicated to men in two ways: through Scripture and through nature (Ps. 19, cf. vv. 2-3 with 8-9). Accordingly, the Gentile nations (and rulers) are repeatedly condemned in Scripture for transgressing the moral standards which we find revealed in the law of Moses—and not simply the summary commands of the decalogue, but their case-law applications and details as well (e.g., Mk. 6:18).”⁵³ “The first principle of the Shema Israel is thus, one God, one law. It is the declaration of an absolute moral order to which man must conform.... Because God is one, and truth is one, the one law has an inner coherence.... Instead of being strata of diverse origins and utility, the law of God is essentially one word, a unified whole.”⁵⁴ Therefore, the natural revelation of God’s law should never be set in opposition to the special revelation of God’s law. John Calvin, John Knox, the early Presbyterians and the Puritans all believed that God’s law revealed in nature and in special revelation was one and the same law. But because of the effects of the fall upon both man and creation, these men focused their attention on special revelation as the only infallible way to understand the natural creation.

Second, it presupposes that general revelation was intended by God to function separately from special revelation. Even before the fall (before sin affected his consciousness and the natural revelation that appeared around him), Adam was still dependent upon God’s special revelation. Adam was a covenant being who communicated with God on a daily basis before the fall. “The revelation of the covenant to man in paradise was supernaturally mediated. This was naturally the case inasmuch as it pertained to man’s historical task. Thus, the sense of obedience or disobedience involved in Adam’s consciousness of himself, covenant-consciousness, envelopes creature-consciousness. In paradise Adam knew that as a creature of God it was natural and proper that he should keep the covenant that God had made with him. In this way it appears that man’s proper self-consciousness depended even in paradise, upon his being in contact with both supernatural and natural revelation. God’s natural revelation was within man as well as about him. Man’s very constitution as a rational and moral being is itself revelational to man as the ethically responsible reactor to revelation. And natural revelation is itself incomplete. It needed from the outset to be supplemented with supernatural revelation about man’s future. Thus the very idea of supernatural revelation is correlatively embodied in the idea of man’s proper self-consciousness.”⁵⁵

Third, it ignores the effect of the fall upon the creation and man’s nature. Man is even more dependent upon supernatural revelation after the fall than he was before. “Biblically, man’s reason cannot autonomously discover law because man’s reason has been damaged by the Fall, in that man’s heart, the control center of his being which guides his reason, is in rebellion against his Creator (Rom. 1). Man since the Fall, is radically affected by Original Sin, which is nothing less than the desire to be his own god, determining good and evil for himself (Gen. 3); this, in the absence of regeneration (and even after regeneration not fully healed in this life), is the ruling motivation of his life. Moreover, nature itself is fallen and imperfect (Rom. 8:22); hence, even if man’s reason were autonomous he could not hope to derive perfect laws from a fallen nature. But the problem in the real world is compounded by the fact that both man’s reason and nature itself are fallen, realities which destroy his pretensions to know and proclaim naturally available principles of law.”⁵⁶

How is mankind supposed to develop a unified, coherent, just system of law from a fallen world? Without the word of God as a guide to define sin, crime, justice, evil and so on, how is man to decide what in nature is normative and what in nature is a perversion as a result of the fall? “The difficulty concerns how we are to select those aspects of natural behavior or those laws of nature (in the descriptive sense) which can legitimately serve as guides to moral behavior. For it is idle to pretend that we can extract a uniform message from nature. Are we, for instance, to model ourselves upon the peaceful habits of sheep or upon the internecine conflicts of ants? Is the egalitarianism of the beaver or the hierarchical life of the bee the proper exemplar for human society? Should we imitate the widespread polygamy of the animal kingdom, or is there some higher regularity of which this is no more than a misleading instance? In the light of these and similar questions, it becomes impossible to regard the maxim ‘follow nature’ as a substantive guide to conduct. Moreover, although these discrepancies in nature considerably reduce the value of natural-law doctrine from an epistemological point of view, the damage they do to it as a logical theory would seem fatal, for the nature in terms of which the norms of justice are defined turns out to be internally inconsistent.”⁵⁷ The “natural” order after the fall says one thing to St. Thomas Aquinas and quite another thing to the Marquis de Sade. Apart from divine revelation and an understanding of the fall’s effect upon the created order, “nature” can be used to justify murder, fornication, theft, rape, aggressive warfare, homosexuality, anarchy, totalitarianism and so on.

Since man is both a covenant creature and a fallen creature, there can be in principle no ethical neutrality between regenerate and unregenerate man. While it is true that unregenerate men have a true knowledge of God (Rom. 1:18), it is a suppressed knowledge. It is also true that unsaved men have the work of the law written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15), but this does not mean that unbelievers love God’s law as a whole. “The Bible is clear that men have two basic religious philosophies: one, anti-Christian and worldly, and the other Christian and anti-worldly. These two religious philosophies take diametrically opposite views of God and His word. The worldly tradition of unbelievers makes them enemies of God, who see God’s word as utter foolishness and will not be subject to it. The Christian view fears God, sees Christ as the source of all wisdom and knowledge, and seeks to make every thought captive to Him.... The Bible condemns the ideas of autonomous reason, neutral or impartial thinking, and intellectual-moral common ground between Christians and pagans, and the acquisition and advocacy of Truth by pagans. This is not to say that pagans can learn nothing, or that Christians can learn nothing from pagans. The mind that seeks to replace God’s law with man’s law may admit the truth of some of God’s laws, but its enmity against the Lord, and its desire to be its own lord, will never let it admit the goodness and justice either of God’s law as a whole or of God’s law in its details.”⁵⁸ Thus the call by Christian scholars to reject God’s judicial Old Testament laws in favor of natural law is an implicit surrender to a pagan law order. There is no neutrality. Man cannot serve two diametrically opposed law systems at the same time. If Christians, in the name of neutrality, adopt natural law instead of biblical law, they will end up with pagan law. “Christian scholars have endlessly asserted the existence of neutral, ‘natural’ laws that can serve as the Church’s earthly hope of the ages, an agreeable middle way that will mitigate the conflict in history between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man. The winner of such a naive quest will always be the kingdom of man. Theoretical neutrality means man’s operational autonomy: men do not have to consider what God requires or threatens in history.”⁵⁹

Fourth, those who advocate independent natural law are giving it a role in society that Scripture does not sanction. When the apostle Paul discusses what unbelievers do by “nature,” he does not set forth some sort of natural law theory by which to formulate civil laws for society. He simply sets out to condemn, to render guilty before God, Gentiles who do not have special revelation. Paul says, “For there is no partiality with God. For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law” (Rom. 2:11-12). Paul answers the question: How are Gentiles, who do not have the written law, guilty? Paul argues that Gentiles, who though fallen, are created in the image of God and still have enough of the works of the law upon their heart and conscience to render them guilty before God. Paul does not argue that every detail of the law is discernible through natural revelation. Paul is not setting forth a method of social ethics apart from special revelation. In fact, Paul is careful to qualify his statement regarding the law that unbelievers do have. Note, that Paul says the “work of the law is written in their hearts” (Rom. 2:15). Murray writes: “Paul does not say that the law is written upon their hearts. He refrains from this form of a statement apparently for the same reason as in verse 14 he had said that the Gentiles ‘do the things of the law’ and not that they did or fulfilled the law. Such expressions as ‘fulfilling the law’ and ‘the law written upon the heart’ are reserved for a state of heart and mind far beyond that predicated of unbelieving Gentiles.”⁶⁰ To argue that this passage teaches that unbelievers can develop a detailed, just, comprehensive judicial law system by simply following their conscience is not warranted. The Jews are guilty because they have broken God’s detailed written law, and the Gentiles are guilty for breaking the broad unwritten law that remains within. Paul goes on to say that Jews have a great advantage over Gentiles because “to them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2). Why do Christian scholars argue that the detailed, perspicuous written law must be ignored in order that nations can develop a system of judicial law from a sin-fogged, piecemeal version of the same law? Could it be that Christians are embarrassed by God’s law? Many scholars are simply using natural law theory as an excuse to preserve human autonomy. Many Christians have been so influenced by Dispensational thinking and the myth of religious pluralism that given the choice between God’s law and man’s law, they choose the latter. Gary North concurs: “What Paul taught was this: all men have been given sufficient internal revelation of God—the image of God in man—to condemn them eternally. ‘Know thyself’ gets you into hell, not heaven. This light of internal revelation, through God’s restraining grace (‘common grace’), enables human society to function in history. God does not allow men to become totally consistent with their own covenant-breaking presuppositions. But to the extent that men become consistent with their covenant-breaking religions, they depart from this testimony of God’s ethical standards. Thus, natural law theory as a concept separated from the biblical revelation is like every other doctrine separated from revelation: wrong. The outline of autonomous law is wrong; the judicial content is also wrong.”⁶¹

Fifth, the death blow to natural law theory as an independent system of judicial law for nations comes from the clear teaching of the Bible: that all nations are obligated to obey God’s written law. Although the written law was primarily addressed to God’s covenant people, all nations are obligated to obey God’s moral law and the moral case laws. “You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country; for I am the LORD your God” (Lev. 24:22). The command to have the same law is given in the midst of judicial laws (in the very next verse a man is executed for blasphemy). “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecc. 12:13).

Moses, in his sermon to the people before they entered the promised land, tells the people to carefully observe all of God’s law. Why? Because Israel was to be an example to the surrounding pagan nations. “Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?” (Deut. 4:6-8). Calvin says regarding verse 8:

And for proof thereof, what is the cause that the heathen are so hardened in their own dotages [feebleness]? It is for that [because] they never knew God’s law, and therefore they never compared the truth with the untruth. But when God’s law cometh in place, then doth it appear that all the rest is but smoke: in so much that they which took themselves to be marvelous[ly] witty, are found to have been no better than besotted in their own beastliness. This is apparent. Wherefore let us mark well, that to discern that there is nothing but vanity in all worldly devises, we must know the Laws and ordinances of God. But if we rest upon men’s laws, surely it is not possible for us to judge rightly. Then must we needs go first [need to go first] to God’s school, and that will show us that when we have once profited under him, it will be enough. This is all our perfection. And on the other side we may despise all that is ever invented by man, seeing there is nothing but fondness and uncertainty in them. And that is the cause why Moses termeth them rightful ordinances. As if he should say, it is true indeed that other people have store[s] of ceremonies, store[s] of rules, and store[s] of Laws: but there is no right at all in them, all is awry, all is crooked. True it is that they perceive it not: and what is the cause thereof, but for that it is not possible for them to discern good from evil, without God’s word which is the truth? Howsoever we fare, we cannot do the thing that is just or right, except we have first learned it at God’s hand. And if we have been so far overseen as to allow our own doings, let us not go on still, for God will disallow every whit of it, because we must take all our rightness at his truth. In this case it is not for every man to bring his own weights and his own balance [Calvin here is referring to justice]: but we must hold ourselves to that which God hath uttered and doth utter.⁶²

This statement is an unequivocal rejection of the medieval doctrine of natural law. Calvin says that if the heathen are to have right laws they must first go to God’s word and think His thoughts after Him.

The fact that Israel received special revelation (i.e., the written law) from God proves the vast superiority of their law and justice system to those of the surrounding pagan nations. Because Israel received an infallible, precious, written revelation of God’s law, they would be considered (if obedient) “a wise and understanding people” (Deut. 4:6) by the Gentiles. Why? Because the best that the Gentiles could hope to achieve through natural revelation would be a hit-or-miss, sin-obscured edition of the law revealed in Scripture. Thus, the whole idea of the written law being only for Israel, while the Gentile nations must look to natural law is unbiblical. As Isaiah the prophet says, “Listen to Me, My people; and give ear to Me, O My nation: for law will proceed from Me, and I will make My justice rest as a light of the peoples” (Isa. 51:4). If God had intended that the Gentile nations should receive their laws from nature after the coming of Christ (instead of from the written law), then surely God would have required the Gentile nations to do the same under the Old covenant. Yet the exact opposite is the case. God’s law, including the judicial law, is repeatedly set forth as a light to the Gentile nations. Furthermore, as noted above, the attempt to place the law revealed in Scripture and the law revealed in nature in separate categories (one for Israel and one for Gentiles) assumes that God has two separate laws, when, in fact, there is only one law. “Such a blessed lamp as God’s law (cf. Prov. 6:23) should not be put under a bushel but allowed to shine into the world so that other men would come to glorify God and serve Him. Consequently, the norm of the law should be seen as applying to those living outside the borders of Israel; otherwise God would be represented as having a double standard of judgment—something which He clearly forbids in His people and their judges (Deut. 25:13-16; Lev. 19:35-37).”⁶³

Sixth, the moral case laws that are a part of Israel’s judicial law are used by God as a guide to judge the heathen nations. If these laws applied only to Israel and not to the surrounding nations, why are whole nations destroyed by God for the violation of these laws? In Leviticus chapter 18, after a whole series of moral case laws dealing with sexual immorality, God declares: “Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who sojourns among you, for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled” (Lev. 18:24-27). If the pagan nations were judged by the moral case laws found in the judicial law, then those nations were subject to that law, for God obviously cannot judge a people for violating laws that do not apply to them.

The judgment of Sodom by God is further evidence that the moral case laws are universally binding on all nations at all times. Hundreds of years before the written law of God was given to Israel, Sodom was completely destroyed for violating God’s law. Which law? Sodom was destroyed for violating what eventually would be classified as a moral case law: the prohibition against homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). Thus, the heathen nations are just as obligated to keep the moral laws as they are the Ten Commandments, for “if there had been no binding laws, there could have been no sin and hence no justified vengeance of God against the Sodomites.”⁶⁴

Although it is true that the prohibition against homosexuality is repeated in the New Testament (as are a number of other case laws), that does not mean such cases are binding only because they are repeated. The apostles used the moral case laws to illustrate and prove various ethical points that needed to be made. That they freely used the moral case laws proves their abiding validity.

In endorsing the Old Testament law, the New Testament never stops to make a special exception for the judicial laws. Indeed, when Jesus summarized the entire law, He quoted not from the ten commandments, but from two laws about love outside the decalogue (Matt. 22:37-39; cf. Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18), Laws outside the decalogue were quoted as on a par with the ten commandments (Mark 10:19). Even the lighter demands of the law were not to be left undone, said Jesus (Luke 11:42). Consequently, Jesus condemned the setting aside of the death penalty for incorrigible children (Matt. 15:4-5). Paul appealed to the extra-decalogical prohibition against incest (1 Cor. 5:1). The case law against homosexuality was upheld in the New Testament (1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18). James applied the judicial law about prompt payment of one’s employees (5:4). The important New Testament injunctions about not avenging oneself, about going to an offending brother, and about caring for one’s enemies are all taken from the judicial laws of the Old Testament (Rom. 12:19; Matt. 18:15; Rom. 12:20; Matt. 5:44). You see, the New Testament cites the judicial laws of the Old Testament too often, and without apology or disclaimer, to accept at face value the bald claim of theonomic critics that these laws have been abolished by the work of Christ or the coming of the Holy Spirit. ‘Not one jot or tittle will pass away from the law until heaven and earth pass away’ (Matt. 5:18).⁶⁵

The common idea among Evangelicals that only those laws that are repeated in the New Testament are binding is arbitrary, for nowhere in the Bible are we told to only obey laws that are repeated in the New Testament. It is also absurd, for a number of important moral case laws are not repeated. Is bestiality permissible in the New covenant era? Of course not! “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).

Seventh, natural revelation is clearly inadequate for a detailed system of judicial law because there are further categories and distinctions that cannot be derived from nature. The Bible makes a distinction between sins that are not crimes (e.g., lust, not caring for the poor, getting drunk, lying that does not involve fraud, coveting, etc.) and sins that are crimes (e.g., homosexual behavior, adultery, bestiality, theft, rape, murder, manslaughter, fraud, etc.). Although nature is adequate to render people guilty before God, it cannot tell us what sins the state should punish with penal sanctions and what sins the state should ignore. One of the main reasons the rejection of biblical law and the embracing of secular humanism has resulted in statism is the simple fact that the state seeks to punish many activities (e.g., smoking, accidentally hurting kangaroo rats, etc.) that are, according to the Bible, outside the parameter of criminal law.

Another aspect of judicial law that cannot be derived from nature is penology. Although it is fairly obvious that certain crimes are more heinous than others (e.g., murder is worse than theft), how are civil authorities to determine equitable punishments for all the various crimes, apart from the details of the Bible’s civil law-code? Does nature teach restitution, a prison system or a system of physical torture? Can the conscience discern the penalty for manslaughter or fraud, or the seduction of an unmarried virgin? The result of rejecting the moral case laws and the specific penalties found in the civil law has been judicial chaos. History has proven that without the specific judicial guidelines for punishment found in the Old Testament law, civil magistrates have been arbitrary in both defining what constitutes a crime and meting out the punishment for various offenses. During the Middle Ages, punishment was often unduly harsh. Torturing and disemboweling a peasant for hunting in the king’s forest is sadistic and not befitting the crime. In our day, many murderers are paroled after five years in prison. The idea that sinful men can decide for themselves what is a crime and what is a proper punishment for that crime is a recipe for societal disaster and statist tyranny. Gary North concurs: “In the modern world, we have experienced a huge increase in criminal activity. This has been the inevitable result of the West’s steady abandonment of biblical penal sanctions. Western society has been in revolt against God’s penal sanctions for many centuries. From the beginning, the West substituted public torture followed by capital punishment by an executioner in place of the Old Testament’s requirement of execution by public stoning. Second, it substituted imprisonment for restitution to victims. Third, in the 1820’s, the United States began to substitute the centralized state prison systems for local jails and public flogging, and these new institutions became the penal models for the whole Western world. Fourth, civil courts substituted life imprisonment for capital punishment. Fifth, judges substituted parole for the life imprisonment. By the early 1970’s, for example, the median time served in prison for homicide in the State of Massachusetts was under three years. Step by step, the West began to subsidize the criminals at the expense of the victims, and all in the name of compassion.”⁶⁶

If Christians are going to be serious about discipling the nations, they must reject unscriptural natural law theories and learn to apply the Old Testament moral case laws to modern society. The current hostility of many within Reformed churches toward adopting the moral case laws for the nations⁶⁷ is not based on sound exegesis, but rather on an acceptance of political polytheism. Natural law theory has been used as an excuse to avoid God’s judicial law. By default most professing Christians have turned the making of civil law over to the humanists. “You would be surprised how many Christians still believe something dangerously close to Marcionism: not a two-god view, exactly, but a ‘God-who-changed-all-His-rules’ sort of view. They begin with accurate teaching that the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament were fulfilled by Christ, and therefore that the unchanging principles of worship are applied differently in the New Testament, but then they erroneously conclude that the whole Old Testament system of civil law was dropped by God, and nothing biblical was put in its place. In other words, God created a sort of vacuum for State law.”⁶⁸ In the current debate regarding God’s law, natural law is simply a smokescreen for autonomous law.

Sanctification and the Law

Before discussing sanctification and the law, one must first define sanctification. The Westminster Shorter Catechism says: “Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.”⁶⁹ Berkhof defines sanctification “as that gracious and continuous operation of the Holy Spirit, by which He delivers the justified sinner from the pollution of sin, renews his whole nature in the image of God, and enables him to perform good works.”⁷⁰ In justification, the sinner who believes in Jesus is declared righteous before God solely on the merits of Jesus Christ. The guilt of sin is removed by the sacrificial death of Christ and the sinner is clothed with Christ’s perfect righteousness (His sinless life). But once the believer is justified by God, then immediately begins the lifelong process of sanctification.

Sanctification cannot be separated from justification. Why? Because the person who believes in Jesus Christ receives Him as Lord (Acts 16:31; Col. 2:6). The idea that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life and suffered humiliation and an excruciating death on the cross to satisfy the righteous demands of God’s holy law, so that Christians could live a life of sin and loose morals, is unbiblical and perverse. Second, Christians are united with Jesus Christ in His death and resurrection: therefore, Christ breaks the power of sin for all believers. “For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin” (Rom. 6:5-7). “If we have become identified with Christ in his death and if the ethical and spiritual efficacy accruing from his death pertains to us, then we must also derive from his resurrection the ethical and spiritual virtue which our being identified with him in his resurrection implies. These implications for us of union with Christ make impossible the inference that we may continue in sin that grace may abound.”⁷¹ Third, Christians receive the Holy Spirit when they believe in Christ (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 12:3). “The Holy Spirit is called holy not only because He is to be distinguished from all other spirits, and in particular from unclean spirits, but also because He is the source of all holiness.... The holiness of God’s people that results from their sanctification by the Holy Spirit must be attributed entirely to Him as He works through His word. The ‘fruit’ of the Spirit is just that: it is the result of His work.”⁷² All the saving graces flow forth from Christ’s atoning death. Jesus Christ as the exalted King sent His Holy Spirit unto the church. Therefore, those for whom Christ died will be sanctified. Sanctification does not contribute one iota to one’s salvation or justification before God. But those who are justified will be sanctified. “Pursue peace with all men, and holiness [sanctification], without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14).

Sanctification begins in regeneration when God implants “a new spiritual nature in the subject of His grace.”⁷³ Sanctification is definitive in the sense that it was secured by our union with Christ. It is progressive in the sense that it is a lifelong process whereby the Holy Spirit subdues sin and increases our personal righteousness over time. The Bible teaches that no Christian can achieve ethical perfection in this life (1 Kg. 8:46; Prov. 20:9; Rom. 3:10, 12; Jas. 3:2; 1 Jn. 1:8). Since sanctification involves the whole man, both body and soul, final sanctification does not occur until believers are resurrected and receive glorified bodies. Sanctification as a process consists of two parts. First, sin is subdued in the believer. Sinful lusts and habits are progressively removed from the believer’s life. Second, the believer becomes more righteous and godly in his personal life. Thus, sanctification is both negative and positive in character and these two aspects of sanctification occur simultaneously. “The old structure of sin is gradually torn down, and a new structure of God is reared in its stead.... Thank God, the gradual erection of the new building need not wait until the old one is completely demolished. If it had to wait for that, it could never begin in this life.”⁷⁴

Sanctification is a work of God in the believer. In sanctification the Holy Spirit works upon man in both a mediate and immediate way. In regeneration, the Holy Spirit works immediately; He works directly upon man’s soul implanting a new spiritual nature. The working of the Holy Spirit directly upon the Christian’s heart is beyond our comprehension and is encompassed with mystery. The Holy Spirit also works mediately or through means. He works upon the conscious life of man through the word of God. He employs the means of grace such as the word of God and the preached word, (i.e., by public worship [Jn. 17:17, 19; 1 Pet. 1:22; 2:2]; by partaking of the sacraments [Matt. 3:11; 1 Cor. 12:13; 1 Pet. 3:21]; by communion with God in prayer [Jn. 14:13-14]; and by practicing good works [Jn. 15:2; Rom. 5:3-4; Heb. 12:5-11]). “Thus, while sanctification is a grace, it is also a duty; and the soul is both bound and encouraged to use with diligence, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, all the means for its spiritual renovation, and to form those habits of resisting evil and of right action in which sanctification so largely consists…. An action to be good must have its origin in a holy principle in the heart, and must be conformed to the law of God. Although not the ground of our acceptance, good works are absolutely essential to salvation, as the necessary consequences of a gracious state of soul and perpetual requirement of the divine law.”⁷⁵

The Holy Spirit uses the word of God to sanctify believers. “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (Jn. 17:17). “You have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit...” (1 Pet. 1:22). “As newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby...” (1 Pet. 2:2). The whole Bible is our law-word unto sanctification. Christians learn and grow by the Bible’s precepts, history, examples and so on. Since sanctification is concerned with spiritual growth and ethical conformity to God’s word, it is proper to focus on God’s moral law as a means of sanctification. It is the law that defines sin and tells us what behavior must be removed from our lives. It is God’s law which tells us what is good. Christians need the law in order to die unto sin and to live unto righteousness. Thus, the Psalmist said, “How can a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to Your word.... Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You.... I will meditate on Your precepts, and contemplate Your ways. I will delight myself in Your statutes; I will not forget your word.... Teach me, O LORD, the way of Your statutes, and I shall keep it to the end. Give me understanding, and I shall keep Your law; indeed I will observe it with my whole heart” (Ps. 119:9, 11, 15-16, 33-34). Furthermore, all the means of grace are dependent upon and subordinate to God’s law-word. The word defines prayer; it tells believers how to pray and even what to pray. Apart from the word, the sacraments are meaningless rituals, thus the Lord’s supper is part of public worship and always accompanies the word of God preached.

The idea that the Holy Spirit uses God’s law as a means of sanctification is anathema to many Fundamentalist and Evangelical believers. Because they regard the law as something bad or something belonging to a former dispensation, they attempt to replace the law as a means of sanctification with another source of authority. Thus, in our day, one finds a plethora of bizarre, heretical theories of “Christian” ethics being promulgated by professing believers. One such idea states that Christians are led mystically by the Holy Spirit apart from the word of God. This view is especially popular among charismatic believers. Instead of carefully studying God’s word and meditating on God’s law as a guide for daily decisions, many follow what they believe is the inward guidance of the Holy Spirit. One often hears phrases such as: “The Spirit led me to do this” or “I was led by God to do that.” Such practice is antinomian and subjective. “An amazing irony is to be found in the fact many such ‘spiritualistic’ groups boast in being preachers of God’s word and adamant opposers of modernism while, in point of fact, they have a great deal in common with liberal theology as regards ethics; the post-Kantian theologian is ear-marked by his making religious experience, not the revealed word, his authority (this is variously labeled as insight, piety, intuition, practical reason, mystical rapport, valuation, spiritual vitality, guiding light, etc.).”⁷⁶ How is one to judge these mystical feelings and inner promptings apart from God’s word? The truth is that if people follow their feelings apart from God’s word, they are nothing more than “Christian” relativists. Thankfully, most professing Christians who adhere to such nonsense have enough sense not to blatantly contradict God’s word in their promptings.

Does the Bible teach that the Holy Spirit mystically leads Christians into a sanctified life apart from God’s law? What does Paul mean when he says: “Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16)? Doesn’t Paul say that “if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law” (Gal. 5:18)? To walk in the Spirit means to live or conduct one’s behavior according to the Holy Spirit. Paul is not opposing the law as a rule for life; he is telling the believer that sanctification and victory over sin can only occur in those who are saved and have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. The word of God apart from the power of the Holy Spirit cannot save and cannot sanctify. “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:5-6). The law proves that we are sinners and under a curse; thus Paul says the letter kills. The law apart from the Holy Spirit cannot impart the power to obey. The problem is not that the law is bad and must be eliminated, but that people have sinful natures that are in rebellion against God. When Paul says, “For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh” (Rom. 8:3), he means that our depravity renders the law weak and unable to save. Christians are governed by the Holy Spirit; therefore, they will by no means fulfill the desires of the flesh. Paul is not giving a command but describing a reality.

When Paul says “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Gal. 5:18), or “Sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14), he is telling believers they are not under law as a condition of salvation or as a curse. Thus, they are free. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:1-4). “As no man is free from sin, as no man can perfectly keep the commandments of God, every man who rests upon his personal conformity to the law, as the ground of his acceptance with God, must be condemned. We are not under law in this sense, but under grace; that is, under a system of gratuitous justification. We are justified by grace, without works.”⁷⁷ Dispensationalists have taken passages which teach that Christians are not slaves to the law as a means of salvation, that the indwelling Holy Spirit proves that believers are justified and freed from bondage, and turned them into proof texts against the law itself, as if the law and not our sinful behavior were the enemy. “Galatians 5:18-23 explains that to be led by the Spirit is not to be under the curse, bondage, impotence, and death of the law (which had been described in the preceding sections of Galatians); the demand of the law remains [for sanctification], but now the power needed to obey is provided by the Spirit of God. The law could not be against those who walk by the Spirit, for they are fulfilling the law (see vv. 14, 23). Far from detracting from the law, the Spirit enables us to observe the law as we should. Instead of being condemned and held in bondage by the old letter of the law, we now serve in the newness of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 7:6); we are released from guilt and set free to obedience. The letter of the law without the power of God’s Holy Spirit is a word of condemnation and death to us, but the Spirit gives life and ethical ability.”⁷⁸ The law does not save, regenerate, quicken or enable; only the Holy Spirit can change a man’s heart. But, once a man is saved, the Holy Spirit uses God’s law to show the believer his sins and bring him to daily repentance and growth in holiness.

The rejection of God’s law in sanctification for individuals, institutions and cultures has led to an unbiblical form of pietism. Pietism, in the negative sense, refers to the practice of defining holiness in terms of emotionalism, subjective experience and asceticism rather than obedience to God’s revealed law. The result has been a man-centered faith. “Moreover, pietism’s history has been marked by doctrinal waywardness, because the emphasis on personal experience tends to take priority over God’s word and faithfulness thereto.”⁷⁹ Unbiblical pietism leads Christians to a retreatist, escapist mentality. The focus is on revivalism and the salvation of individuals to the exclusion of the biblical reformation of society and culture. Pietism has led to a mentality of compartmentalization among many professing Christians. God’s word is something for private devotions; it is something relegated to church buildings on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. The idea that God’s word is to be applied to all areas of life and that nations must submit to the Lord Jesus Christ and obey His law is hated by most present-day believers. “What we find in our day is that Christians despise biblical law almost as much as humanists do.... The modern anti-nomian Christian and the modern power-seeking statist want to break God’s judicial chain, His revealed law. The result is the victimization of the judicially innocent and the expansion of the messianic state.”⁸⁰ The modern Christian maxim is “meet, eat, retreat,” and “don’t polish brass on a sinking ship.” Pietism leads to an ethical vacuum in individuals, churches and society. Pietism leads to legalism, for the only alternative to rule by God’s law is some form of man-made law. Thus, one can find the Fundamentalist pastor who orders men in his congregation to wear white shirts and ties; and chews out the deacon who didn’t have time to shave; yet, who does absolutely nothing to stop the advance of statism, abortion on demand, sodomite rights, and so on, in society.

Because many of the leaders in modern Evangelicalism do not understand the relationship between God’s law and sanctification, churches have become antinomian. Such thinking comes primarily from Dispensationalism which teaches that God’s holy law is itself opposed to grace. In their zeal to protect their concept of grace, they have discarded the law. The result has been a disaster for the Evangelical churches. Most Christians cannot recite the Ten Commandments. Many Christian businessmen and contractors are no more trustworthy than their pagan counterparts. Polls taken at several Evangelical Christian colleges have indicated that professing Christians at these schools practiced almost the same amount of sexual immorality as found among their non-Christian counterparts. One study indicated that only 4% of Evangelicals tithed. Modern churches rarely discipline members who are involved in gross immorality. Many churches will gladly accept people under discipline from other churches. Excommunication is rare. Most churches simply r